Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by river, Nov 11, 2012.

  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    That is a truism, of course, I can't argue with that.

    The point I have been repeatedly making is that for an ordinary atheist to apply any of the theistic teachings (and apply them as theistic) is impossible, or would require a giant leap of faith.

    Anyone can mechanically go along with some instruction - but only for a limited amount of time. Once the going gets hard, brute force or sheer will don't work anymore: then, one needs some good reason to continue.
    Typically, theists do not provide such reasons.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Of course it doesn't persist. And theists typically blame it on people, claiming "it's because you're jaundiced that you don't like this" as if this accuse alone would make the theistic instruction sensible.


    That makes me suspect you didn't have the proper attitude toward it.


    Those descriptions are mostly just examples of humans bitching about animals, and in uninformed ways. I'm not going to go along with claiming that ostriches bury their heads in the sand, and stupid things like that.

    If you have a point to make, make it analytically, accurately, and not with misinformed comparisons.


    One cannot "just have faith."
    That's psychosis.


    Given that you theists typically look down on people like her anyway, what is your point?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Which is why we're here writing simplistic responses rather than a book. If I was to try to write about my entire opinion on the subject, Wynn, I'd be here for months and probably wouldn't be due to the possibility I could make a decent amount of coin writing said book.
    I believe I've spoken more than once about the inadequacies of a a place like this, and quite simply this is one of the more annoying if one happens to be serious about a topic.

    I was just quite struck with the fact that LG could conceptualise something like that, and not even see how it might apply to him in terms of what faith actually was. Staggering.

    Which is why I mentioned that most atheists are also capable of logically demolishing the idea of god and then never take the next step, which is to consider the ramifications of there not being one. The satisfaction in their perception of themselves having demolished someone elses belief is in no way a precursor to them questioning their own. Thinking further is dangerous.

    His argument, I was merely going along with it and pointing out what he obviously hadn't considered.

    I like the statement, but then we don't all walk around consciously aware of our beliefs in this regard all day either.
    Not thinking about things consciously is one of those defence mechanisms. Most spend far more time in that state than otherwise, and don't often delve too deeply when they do. Human intelligence is finely-balanced thing.
    Having said that,

    Can too. Just did.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Says a lot about your capability of thought, LG, that "a" gate to you becomes "The" Gate.

    Glad you watched a documentary once. That's nice. There are probably thousands out there, and let's all wonder for a minute or so how much time you'll spend trying to find one that says something completely different.
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    as opposed to the value of arguing with atheistic/gross materialist nut jobs?
    Faith is precisely the basis of all activity, religious or other wise.

    The problem is that gross materialist nutjob insists that by calling the exact same phenomena by a different name (such as "educated guess" or "inductive knowledge" or even "axiomatic foundations for knowledge") they are now dealing with a distinctly different thing
    :shrug:

    So what are you going to call this ...errr .. "anticipation" of what science is capable of instead of "faith" in order to maintain a facade of credibility?

    On the contrary, religion cuts straight to the essence of the essential, difficult problems of life - namely temporary existence with a temporary identity in a temporary world - as opposed to merely fine tuning the animal propensities afforded by all species

    its kind of silly to think you can present an argument of logic (regardless whether it is pro-atheist or pro-theist) without being underwritten by some issue of value (which is in turn always underscored by issues of faith)

    rolling over and dying (along with absolute obliteration of all and any of your materialistic contributions at the hands of the time factor) is not a choice.

    The only distinction is that a theist has a few other options while the value system of the atheist relegates them to a necessarily inferior/reduced scope for thought and action

    The notion of all things (including ourselves) being governed by a superior individual is only demoralizing and depressing for an atheist. Far from it being an invitation to lay off and mope around and do nothing, its actually an inspiration and basis for action for a theist

    On the contrary the material world is primarily about inundating the conditioned living entity with a godless view. It doesn't really matter which species of life we are talking about, I think we can all agree that the issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending are very popular. The tragedy of the human form of life (at least in this contemporary age) is that the intelligence has been hijacked by these animal propensities with the result of an (apparently) unprecedented level of global environmental chaos.
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    and this is a necessarily incorrect way to analyze a situation because?
    people never make incorrect decisions/develop inappropriate attitudes due to approaching a subject matter in a partial or incomplete manner?




    lol
    feel free to go to rajastan and engulf the camel population with your innate benevolent disposition ...




    those examples exist to make analytical points ... especially for people who have a strong resistance tor receiving analytical points




    Even more crazier is "just having a result" without it




    wtf?
    Look down on people who make spiritual advancement?
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330

    get back to us when you have something to contribute to the discussion

    thanks in advance

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It's dangerous only from the perspective (taken either by theists or atheists) of identifying with one's mind.


    The thing is that traditional Buddhism - which for all practical intents and purposes is atheistic - makes in roundabout the same argument as theists when it comes to the unsatisfactory nature of life as it is usually lived. So it's not like the theists are giving an argument here that would be specific to theism.


    And in general, in the Eastern conceptions, theistic or atheistic ones, eternal life is not something that would specifically be seen as desirable or something to look forward to; instead, eternal life, in the form of repeated birth and death, they think of it as a given of existence.

    It's only mainstream Christianity that brought about those lovey-dovey notions of the afterlife, with its idea that once this life is over, it's all over and settled and we'll be happy forever.

    In comparison, the Eastern view is grim: samsara literally means 'aimless wandering' - aimlessly wandering on from one life to the next, which is what "life as it is usually lived" is like. So in the Eastern conceptions, the aim is to stop samsara, to stop wandering aimlessly.


    You seem to think that a negative view, a harsh view, one in which humans come out the losers, is the right one, the real one.
    Just like some people think that if one isn't frankly brutal, then one isn't being brutally frank - brutally frank being the desired outlook.


    Of course you "can" do it. Whether that is good or not, is another matter.
     
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    faith is definitely an prerequisite for any sort of value ... and doubly so when we start talking of value systems changing.

    You do a lot to intellectualize the aversion you have to faith, but you never really explain why you are capable of the same value/faith judgments in identical issues (except by giving inadequate explanations of how god is unique ( unlike say the north pole or the practice of buddhism) ... or that you are inadequate to analyze a theist (yet more than eager to go on for paragraphs about their bad points and make blanket statements about them as a creed).


    as already said, it comes from experience. I guess (as it is with any activity) there is a window period where one can blunder along simply in a state of it being a novelty or out of some attraction to some secondary aspect, but sooner or later attachments rise and different paths present themselves.

    Therefore much of the insurance in going about things adequately and avoiding the pitfalls is accepting guidance - This general principle applies to a wide range of activities, not just spiritual life.

    If one has problems with the individuals offering guidance (or even if one has problems identifying such individuals) it tends to show up in the aspirant's practice (what to speak of if they hate the people offering guidance).
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It doesn't help.
    It's inactionable criticism.
    It's an attempt to get the upper hand over the other person.


    Calling someone stupid doesn't make you right. And it certainly doesn't help the person that you are calling stupid, nor does it help the relationship between the two of you.


    I think it's sad you say this.


    I often see this in theists - it's as if they lack empathy and practical aspects of what it takes to help someone. It's as if they simply want to have things done their way, and even if this means destroying those they claim to want to help.


    A person may be "resistant" to analytical or any other points because they don't trust the speaker, not because they would lack intelligence.

    I see this often - theists assuming that they are authorities on intelligence, and that people should just trust them.


    Of course you look down on everyone who doesn't "perform at your level of expertise."
     
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    using intoxication to solve problems is kind of like an unskilled businessman who turns off his phone to avoid having to worry about all the bills they are accruing





    push his buttons a bit and you find all his arguments revert to "identity doesn't exist"
     
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    My point is that your formulation allows for intoxication to count as an attempt to nullify these five different statuses of life, and thus as a means for liberation from the punishment of material existence!!


    Uh. The question was whether you consider CC as an example of the second, more intellectual kind of atheist or not.
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    You don't seem to understand where I am coming from.

    And you are definitely resistant to my explaining my stance.
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    "attempt" being the operative word - professional drug users hardly constitute for being problem free




    the notion of "identity doesn't ultimately exist" requires a bit more introspection than the notion "material happiness ultimately exists"
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I am simply explaining the general principles that prohibits an individual from approaching a (or even "any") value system
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    You didn't address my point.


    You didn't answer my question.
     
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    You are explaining those general principles as you see them.
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If one cannot accept another as having experiences more valid than one's self in a respectful manner (ie acknowledging that some one is better than you at something and not being envious about it) all criticism becomes inactionable.

    Or alternatively, if one draws the line at anyone being better than one's self (ie we are all on an equal platform) criticism is also greatly diminished (and even then, only occurs if there is a strong bond of friendship between the people)




    and .... errr... how many camels have you had experience with exactly?




    I explain this point in detail in the post you missed while writing this and you then say I don't understand you and are resisting your stance .....




    Are you still beating your wife?
     
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If one cannot accept another as having experiences more valid than one's self in a respectful manner (ie acknowledging that some one is better than you at something and not being envious about it) all criticism becomes inactionable.

    Or alternatively, if one draws the line at anyone being better than one's self (ie we are all on an equal platform) criticism is also greatly diminished (and even then, only occurs if there is a strong bond of friendship between the people)




    and .... errr... how many camels have you had experience with exactly?




    I explain this point in detail in the post you missed ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...any-religion&p=3010975&viewfull=1#post3010975 ) while writing this and you then say I don't understand you and are resisting your stance .....




    Are you still beating your wife?
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    (this post will come up on two other occasions probably - can't seem to paste any sort of link in my posts)
    If one cannot accept another as having experiences more valid than one's self in a respectful manner (ie acknowledging that some one is better than you at something and not being envious about it) all criticism becomes inactionable.

    Or alternatively, if one draws the line at anyone being better than one's self (ie we are all on an equal platform) criticism is also greatly diminished (and even then, only occurs if there is a strong bond of friendship between the people)




    and .... errr... how many camels have you had experience with exactly?




    I explain this point in detail in the post you missed while writing this and you then say I don't understand you and are resisting your stance .....




    Are you still beating your wife?
     

Share This Page